Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90360 Case Number: LCR13043 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IRISH RAIL CATERING SERVICES - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union for compensation for five workers affected by changes in the duty roster at Restaurant na Mara.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
It has come to the conclusion that continuation of the present
arrangements which appear to give staff a vested interest in not
working as required is contrary to the interests of all concerned
in the success of the restaurant. The Court therefore recommends
that the Company change its offer to provide a week-end break to
offering three such breaks or the sum of #450 as an alternative,
that such offer be accepted by the workers concerned and that the
amended arrangements as proposed by the Company be worked without
further delay.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90360 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13043
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: IRISH RAIL CATERING SERVICES
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for compensation for five workers affected
by changes in the duty roster at Restaurant na Mara.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a division of Irish Rail, and operates
Restaurant Na Mara, Dun Laoghaire, as part of its catering
activities. In early 1989 the Company carried out a review of
operations at the restaurant and decided to extend its service by
opening on Mondays. The restaurant had until then opened from
Tuesday to Saturday inclusive. The staffing level at the
restaurant is 5 restaurant staff, 8 kitchen staff and 1 part-time
cleaner. In order to implement the Monday opening the Company
proposed that the weekly rosters would be arranged in such a way
as to preserve a 40 hour standard week on a 5 over 6 day basis
Monday to Saturday inclusive from 1st May, 1989. Local
negotiations between parties took place on the implementation of
the proposed new roster and the Company deferred the proposed date
for Monday opening to allow time for further discussions. However
no agreement was reached and the Company decided to introduce
Monday opening from the 12th June, 1989. The five workers
concerned refused to operate the new 6 day roster. The Monday
openings went ahead through the use of overtime payments and
casual staff. Further negotiations took place at local level and
the Union made a claim for #700 nett compensation for each of the
workers concerned. The Company rejected the claim and the matter
was referred on 26th October, 1989 to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court. Conciliation conferences were held on 16th
November, 1989, 14th December, 1989 and 23rd March, 1990 but no
agreement on the matter of the proposed new six day roster was
reached. Proposals which emerged at conciliation in regard to a
paid week-end break for the workers concerned and their partners
in return for co-operation were not acceptable to the Union. The
matter was referred on 19th June, 1990 to a full hearing of the
Labour Court which was held on 17th September, 1990 (the earliest
date suitable to the parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Prior to June, 1989 the staff earned extra income from
special openings on Mondays for summer tours and private
functions. Since June, 1989 some of the staff concerned have
worked Mondays on an overtime basis. The operation of a six
day roster would therefore cause a loss of earnings for the
workers concerned.
2. The system of gratuity payment, which is on a weekly
basis, involves a customer service charge of 15% which is
distributed on a points system between the staff. The staff
concerned already benefit from the extra service charge
generated by the Monday opening and there is therefore no
incentive for them to operate a six day roster.
3. The workers concerned have always had their week-ends free
and are reluctant to change to a new roster which would have a
detrimental effect on their family life. If the Company
wishes to operate a six day roster then the workers should be
adequately compensated for the loss of their week-ends off and
their loss of earnings.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The introduction of Monday opening was required in order
to increase revenue and thus assist in maintaining the
viability of the restaurant. The continued refusal of some
staff to work the new roster has serious implications for the
continued viability of the restaurant. The Monday working on
an overtime basis by some staff is an additional cost which
the Company cannot continue to sustain.
2. The staff concerned have not suffered any loss of
earnings. They have benefited significantly through
additional gratuities without working extra hours. Overtime
rates have been increased and conditions are better than those
obtaining in the restaurant business generally.
3. The new roster would give greater flexibility in
accommodating staff with regard to rest days and would also
provide the opportunity for long week-ends on a rota basis.
The staff concerned should co-operate fully with the new
roster arrangement and there are no valid grounds for a
compensatory payment.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
It has come to the conclusion that continuation of the present
arrangements which appear to give staff a vested interest in not
working as required is contrary to the interests of all concerned
in the success of the restaurant. The Court therefore recommends
that the Company change its offer to provide a week-end break to
offering three such breaks or the sum of #450 as an alternative,
that such offer be accepted by the workers concerned and that the
amended arrangements as proposed by the Company be worked without
further delay.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
__________________________
12th October, 1990. Deputy Chairman
A.S./J.C.